In quinternions, the book beginning with signature _JJ_, written at the extreme bottom corner. A peculiarity worth noting, although by no means uncommon, is the use of a + upon every fifth recto, to show the middle of the section. Another peculiarity, not noticed by me in any other book, is the originality displayed by the scribe who added the signatures. They run through the alphabet of double capitals, then follow the double small letters, as usual, up to zz, ⁊ and ꝯ; but instead of then commencing the alphabet afresh, with another series, the scribe beat his brains as to what he should do next. _ZZ_ (which was really a duplicate) did for one, and then a sign like the Greek letter ξ, thus: | ξj | | ξij | etc.,[9] followed by the words “est” and “per.” His imagination now exhausted, he bethought him of the Lord’s Prayer, the use of which I should never have imagined, till the sequence of the words forced itself upon me. It is used thus, with contractions: _p’ter j--p’ter ij--p’ter iij--p’ter iiij_--four leaves unsigned; _qui j--qui ij--qui iij--qui iiij_--four leaves unsigned; and so on through--_es--Jn--celis--sāficet’--nomē--tuū--adūerat--r’gnū --tuū--fiat--volūtas--tuā--sicut_--and here the book ends.
29.--_Aristotelis Ethica._ Folio. Louvain, 1476. (W. B., from the Klemm Sale.)
Plain MS. signatures through every quaternion.
30.--_Platea, F. de. De restitutionibus._ 4to. Venice, 147-. (Bod. Auct., Q. inf. I 15.)
In Roman type. Signed throughout in MS. at extreme bottom corner. Many cut away.
31.--_Quatuor Novissima._ Folio. Cologne. P. de Olpe, n.d. (Cam. Univ.)
Signed at extreme corner in plain MS.
32.--_Legenda Sanctorum._ Large folio. Printed at Toulouse about 1480. (Sion Coll., London.)
Signed throughout in bold MS., beginning with _a_, and ending at _mm_.
33.--_Historia Scholastica._ Folio. Sine ullâ notâ. Types of Homberch, Cologne (?), no date. (Cam. Univ.)
In double columns, signed in MS. throughout at extreme foot. The leaves are also numbered in MS. in a peculiar way. The first 100 folios are numbered 1 to 100; the second lot _a_1 to _a_100; the third _b_1 to _b_101, which ends the volume. Another copy has MS. signatures also, but well up on the page.
34.--_The earlier Prophets._ A printed Hebrew book. Folio. Soncino, 1485. (Brit. Mus.)
Signed throughout in quaternions in Hebrew MS.
35.--_Balbi de Janua Catholicon._ Folio. Gutenberg. Moguntiæ, 1460. (Sold at Sotheby’s, Feb. 25, 1889.)
About half an inch having been ploughed off the foot, only portions of the signatures are here and there to be traced. In the original state a bold MS. signature, at the bottom right-hand corner, went through every section.
36.--_Calderini, J. Filii Consilia._ Folio. A. Rot, Rome, 1472. (Sotheby’s, Feb. 25, 1889.)
MS. signatures throughout at extreme foot.
37.--_Joh. de Imola._ Folio. Venice. J. de Rubeis, 1475.
MS. signatures throughout at extreme foot.
CLASS III.
MS. AND PRINTED SIGNATURES IN THE SAME BOOK.
38.--_Aquinas, Thos. Summa Angelica._ Per Albert Standael. Folio, 1473. (Bod. Auct. I Q. IV 30.)
Ploughed, but MS. signatures at _b_ 1 and _b_ 5. On _c_ signatures stamped in by hand begin.
39.--_Horatius Flaccus._ Folio. Milan, 1474. (Brit. Mus. C 3, b 3.)
Up to _d_ the signatures are all inserted by the pen, after which printed signatures are used, both being at the extreme edge. There are manuscript catchwords.
40.--_Panormitanus._ Folio. Venice, 1475. (Cam. Univ.) Printed by Johannes de Colonia.
Both MS. and printed signatures run on together through the volume, and their capricious character must have troubled the binder. The printed signatures are close up to the text, and the MS. signatures quite at the foot of the paper. The printed signatures have Arabic figures, thus _a_ 2, and the MS. signatures Roman numerals, thus + ij. The two sorts run together thus:--
Printed MS. Sigs. Sigs. a + b _a_ c _b_ d _c_ e _d_ f _e_ g _f_ h _g_ i _h_ k _i_ l _k_ m _l_ n _m_ o _n_ p _o_ q _p_ r _q_ s _r_ t _s_ u _t_ w _u_ x _w_ y _x_ z _y_ aa * _z_ * bb ⁊ cc ꝯ dd ∴ ee _est_ ff _amē_ gg _aa_ hh _bb_ ii _cc_ kk * _dd_ * ll _ee_ mm _ff_
* = _wanting_
Note the curious custom often seen in manuscripts, where, instead of sig. _z_ being followed by a series of capitals or duplicated small letters, certain contractions and signs are interpolated, and then the new alphabet is begun. The most common are ꝯ the contraction for “us,” ∴ an algebraical mark, and “et” or “est,” both very common words in Latin books. The abnormal use of the letter _w_ in both, as a manuscript and printed signature, is certainly against typographical custom, which has always followed the Latin usage.
41.--_Baldi, Ubert._ Lectura super 123 Cod. Folio. Venice, J. de Colonia et J. Manthen de Gherez, 1474. (Sold at Sotheby’s, Feb. 25, 1889.)
Manuscript signatures _A_ to _J_; _K_ to _N_ have normal printed signatures; _O_ to _U_ have signatures in MS.; while _X_, _Y_, _Z_, ⁊, ꝯ, _aa_, and so on to _nn_, which is the last, have printed, with occasional MS. signatures.
42.--_Augustinus. Cita d’ Dio._ Without place, printer, or date, but c. 1478. (Bodl. AA. c 7.)
Normal signatures throughout, but supplemented by MS. signatures, which are placed at extreme foot.
CLASS IV.
SIGNATURES STAMPED IN WITH SEPARATE TYPES.
43.--_Platea, F. de. De restitutionibus Usurarum et Excōicatorum._ Folio. Venice, 1473. (Bod. Auct. II Q. inf. I 40.)
The signatures to _De restitutionibus_ are stamped in by hand with single types. They are at the extreme edge of the sheet and always close on the “point holes,” the position of which at that time was always at the extreme top and bottom of every folio, making four holes for each sheet. At signature _g_ the plan is altered, and signatures written in by hand, in the same place, supersede the hand-stamp. Many signatures have been cut away.
44.--_Horatius Flaccus._ Folio. Milan, 1474 (?) (Brit. Mus. C 3, b 3.)
Here there are MS. signatures up to _d_, where the stamping begins at the extreme edge of the paper, many having disappeared under the binder’s knife.
45.--_Seneca. Tragœdiæ._ (_Ferrariæ_), Per Andream Gallicum. Large Folio. 1474 (?) (Cam. Univ.)
Stamped signatures at the extreme edge of the bottom corner, rugged, uneven, sometimes upside down, and plainly stamped in by hand. Signature _a_ is all there; _b_ is all cut away; _c_ is omitted; _d_, which follows _b_, is all there; _e_ is signed 2 _d_ on the first recto, and _dd_ on the third recto; _e_ all cut away; _f_ all there; _g_ all there, and so on up to _n_. Upon _n_ 3 for the first time the signature is raised up to the line beneath the text, and so continues to _u_, which is the last. Brunet notices the copy in the National Library, Paris, thus: “Nous y avons remarqué, à l’extrémité inférieure des feuilles des 12 premiers cahiers, et d’une partie du 13^{me} cahier, des signatures qui y ont été apposées après l’impression, avec des caractères d’imprimerie.”
46.--_Propertius._ Folio. Milan, 1476 (?) (Brit. Mus. C 19, a 9.)
Signatures plainly stamped in.
47.--_Horatius Flaccus._ Folio. Venice (impensis P. de Lavagnia civis Mediolanensis), 1476. (Bod. Auct. O. 2. 2.)
The signatures begin with cap. _A_, stamped in, and this plan is pursued through all the quaternions. The signatures are at various distances from the foot of the text, and all at extreme edge, many being cut off.
48.--_Aquinas, T. de. Summa Angelica._ Per Albert Standael. Folio. No place. 1473. (Bod. I Q. IV 30.)
The volume has been ploughed, but MS. signatures remain at signatures _b_ and _b_ 5. On signature _c_ the signatures are stamped in by hand, many, however, being cut away.
49.--_Conradus de Allemania. Concordantiæ bibliorum._ Folio. Strasbourg. Mentelin. No date. (W. B.)
This volume is very peculiar in its method of signature, and shows in an interesting manner the transitional period between the manuscript and printed methods of signing. The book is a large folio, and the sections are quinternions. On the margin, at the foot of the first recto of each section, the number of the section is written boldly in black ink, thus: 1^{us}, 2^{us}, 3^{us}, etc. = primus, secundus, tertius, etc. Lower down, in Arabic numerals, is the number of the sheet, which runs from 1 to 5 in each section, there being five sheets to each section. Thus, the first sheet of each section has its specific place plainly marked upon it, while the succeeding four sheets have a figure only, and nothing to identify them with any particular section. There are type signatures also, but these do not assist in this respect, for they are all stamped in by hand at the extreme edge of the paper, and consist of four varieties only. Thus all the first quarter of the _Concordance_, occupying 12 sections, are stamped _a_ 1, _a_ 2, _a_ 3, _a_ 4, _a_ 5, leaving five leaves unsigned; all the second quarter, from 13 to 24, are _b_ 1, _b_ 2, _b_ 3, _b_ 4, _b_ 5; the third quarter, from 25 to 32, are all _c_; and the fourth, 33 to 42, all _d_. These stamped-in letters are not true signatures, for, with the exception of the first sheet of each section, which bears its rotation number, there is nothing to discriminate them. The type-letters are stamped very carelessly, often quite omitted, often so close to the fore-edge that there was no room for them on the sheet, varying in position with every leaf, and sometimes half an inch and sometimes two inches from the bottom line. This irregularity may account for the sheets having MS. numbers, identical with what are, or should be, the type numbers. Occasionally, at the extreme foot, is also a third repetition of the numbers in bright red ink, evidently added by the rubricator. It is difficult to perceive what particular use either the MS. or type numbers could serve in this instance. There is certainly no difficulty in concluding that the printer’s plan was useless, in case the sheets became mixed, to himself as well as the binder.
CLASS V.
SIGNATURES NOT STAMPED IN BUT PRINTED AT THE SAME TIME AS THE TEXT, A LONG DISTANCE BELOW IT, LIKE THE MS. SIGNATURES.
Every one practically acquainted with Typography will see the difficulty of printing one or two letters standing alone at a distance from the page of type; they were certain to be battered from want of support and the wonder is that any printer ever tried the plan.
[Sidenote:
Text. | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+ | Sig.| +-----+ ]
50.--_Uberti, Fazio degli, etc._ Folio. Vincent. (Lyons?) 1474. (Brit. Mus. C 6, b 7.)
There are type signatures throughout, but all at the very bottom of the page, and at the distance from the text here given. The exactitude of the distance in consecutive pages points to the signatures being printed at same time as text.
51.--_Catullus. Opera._ 4to. Venice, 1475. (Brit. Mus. C 19, d 9. Cracherode copy.)
The third book in this volume is _Propertius_, and here, although they might easily escape the eye, are bold signatures, printed so near the corner that only a few have escaped the binder’s knife. They are _B_ 1, _B_ 2, _B_ 3, _C_ 1, _C_ 3, _D_ 2, _D_ 3, _D_ 4, _E_ 1, _E_ 2, _E_ 3, and _F_ 1. In the first two and last books there are no signatures remaining.
[Sidenote:
Text. | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+ | Sig.| +-----+ ]
52.--_Uberti, Ditta._ Folio. Rome, 1474. (Brit. Mus.)
The signatures are all printed at this distance from the bottom of the text, and all at the same distance. If they were stamped in, they would certainly show some variation.
53.--_Nider, J. de. De contractibus._ 4to. Homborch, Cologne. No date. (Bod. 2 Q. VI 25.)
Signature _a j_ is blank; _a ij_ is without signature; _a iij_ is signed in type, but at a distance of two full lines below the text. Type signatures also appear at signatures _b j_, and _b iij_. The volume has been ploughed.
[Sidenote:
Text. | | | | | | | | | | | +-----+ | Sig.| +-----+ ]
54.--_Uberti, Ditta._ Folio. Rome, 1474. (Bod. Auct. II Q 3, 50.)
This is a copy of the same book noticed above, and agrees in all respects with it; the distance of the signatures from the bottom line of the page being always the same.
CLASS VI.
THE NORMAL SIGNATURE, PRINTED IN THE LINE JUST BENEATH THE TEXT.
55.--_Mamotrectus._ Folio. Printed at Ergow (Switzerland), 1470. (Bod. Auct. V Q. V 41.)
A book quoted as the earliest known instance of printed signatures; but this is a mistake, for the numeration of the various columns of text by a series of letters under each column has nothing in common with signatures. The MS. signatures, if any, have been cut away.
56.--_Nider, Johann. Expositio Decalogi._ Folio. Lubeck. Printed by John Koelhoff, 1472. (Brit. Mus. C 14, b 2.) Also in the Bodleian.
This is a puzzling book, for it is at least two years earlier than any other book so signed. In this city, too, many works were issued with MS. signatures with a later date than this. It is dangerous to assert that a book is wrongly dated because you cannot make it fit into a bibliographical theory; but I feel inclined, from the general aspect of the book, to date it as 1482, rather than 1472.
57.--_Platea, F. de._ Folio. Cologne, 1474. (Brit. Mus. 1275, d 5.)
Here the signatures are printed close up to the text in the usual way.
58.--_Lucan’s Epigrams._ Folio. Venice, 1475. (Brit. Mus. C 16, i 9.)
Here the signatures are printed close up to the text in the normal way.
* * * * *
From these examples, it appears that (1) the scribes, who made books before the rise of printers, used signatures; that (2) the printers began by signing like the scribes, at the very foot of the pages; that (3) for some years they used both MS. and stamped signatures; which (4) gave way to stamping the signatures in by hand; then (5) by printing them in at extreme corner; and, lastly, in 1474, by placing them up close to the page, where they have remained ever since.
We have seen how every book had its signatures, and that the law was to sign the leaves of the first half of every section. We will now trace the development of signatures caused by printing more than one page at a time, and its effect upon the size notation of books.
Paper, although invented many centuries before the discovery of printing, was little used for library books, being looked down upon as inferior in every way to vellum. It was used for school-books such as Donatuses and Cato’s distichs, but not for good books. With the advent of the press this was soon changed. Even if the expense had not been too great, all the skins of Europe could not have supplied the rapacious jaws of the new giant book-maker. So it is that the use of paper for standard books is synchronous with the invention of printing. But with sheets of paper a new development arose: the scribe writing on, page by page, section by section, required his vellum already cut to size, and in this the early printers followed suit--from necessity where the pages were large, and from old custom where small; but paper, being made in moulds, differed from parchment in being always regular to certain fixed sizes; and being easily folded, a new nomenclature for the various foldings became necessary.
Until the invention of printing there appear to have been no particular names for the sizes of books. There are numerous catalogues extant of large manuscript libraries, especially those of Burgundy and France in the 14th and 15th centuries; but although the catalogue writers are minute as to certain particulars, such as the character of writing and the ornamental binding, there is never any mention of size beyond the vague “ung grand liure” for a big History of the World, or “ung petit liure” for a diminutive Horæ. With the use of paper, however, subdivision came in the natural course of events, and sheets folded in half were called folio, in half again, quarto, and in half again, octavo,--a nomenclature as precise as it was novel. Another development was printing two pages at a time, followed soon by four pages. This was done by an arrangement which allowed one half of the sheet to be printed by a first pull, and the other half by a second pull, without lifting the sheet from the press. It also required a special arrangement of the pages of type, which had to be placed head to head, in order to make them read aright when folded.
We have seen how, with folio books, the various sheets were placed inside one another like a quire of paper, and now with the printing in quarto a system of signatures arose which has puzzled bibliographers, viz.: where the first recto of a section is signed _a j_, the second recto blank, and the third signed _a ij_, with all the rest blank. Let the reader take two sheets of common note paper, and folding each, separately, in half, make a representation of quarto. Now mark on the first recto of the first sheet the signature _a j_, leaving three leaves unmarked, and on the first recto of the other sheet _a ij_, and then place the second sheet inside the first, and at once you have a quaternion, with the following series: sig. _a j_--none--sig. _a ij_--none--none--none--none--none. This was really an excellent plan: it answered all the purpose of the binder in collating, and was a natural development It did not, however, take deep root, and the old plan of signing the first four leaves prevailed long after its usefulness had vanished. The octavo size was treated in a similar manner. It is common to find 16th and 17th century books printed in the whole sheets octavo, and signed like the folios and quartos on each of the four first rectos. We may here just notice another peculiarity of signing, and that is where, although the sections have eight leaves only, they are signed upon the fifth as well as the first four rectos, leaving only three rectos unsigned. This had a slight use in telling the binder which was the central sheet of each section, and that he need look no further. It was also a distinct imitation of the scribes, who used a + mark for the same purpose, as already noticed. The Aldus family did not print smaller than 8vo, but the Elzevirs and Plantins used 16mo and 32mo abundantly, the old custom of signing still surviving, and the small alike with the large sections consisting of eight leaves, of which four were signed and four not signed.
The tendency to print small books developed another practice which ought to be understood. Say that it is decided to print a volume in 24mo; this, of course, is 24 pages on one side of the sheet and 24 pages on the other. Take now a sheet of any size, a sheet of note paper will show the working of it as well as any: folded once it is folio, making 4 pages; now fold carefully across into three, that makes 6to, with 12 pages; fold into half again, and that is 12mo, with 24 pages; and again in half is 24mo, with 48 pages. Here the back is too thick and clumsy for binding, so cut the paper into three even parts where you made the second fold, and then treating each third part as if it were a distinct sheet, and signing each on the first four rectos, you have 16 pages to each third. Thus, three complete signatures were printed on one sheet, and then cut up into thirds when bound, with the result that the 32mo book, if judged only by the visible signatures, ought to be classed as 8vo, all the signatures having four signed and four unsigned leaves.
_We now see that all sizes being signed alike, the signatures cannot with early printed books be any guide as to size._
So much for signatures. There are many other peculiarities which might be noticed, but when the above are understood, other variations explain themselves.
THE EARLY SCHOOLS OF TYPOGRAPHY.
The celebrated cause of “Mayence _v._ Haarlem,” which has occupied more or less the attention of all the literary courts in Europe for the last three centuries, has still to wait for anything like a unanimous verdict. German writers listen with contempt to any argument in favour of Coster’s claims; and, shutting their ears, keep shouting, like the Ephesians of old, “Great is Gutenberg of the Germans.” On the other hand, our Dutch friends hold fast to their “beloved” but shadowy Coster, and, while admitting that Gutenberg’s efforts were successful, raise after him the cry of “Stop thief!” Let me, then, as one who claims neither nationality, suggest that it may be just possible--nay, probable--that the invention was truly but independently made in both countries.
With regard to the claims of Haarlem, it appears to me that Dutch bibliographers place too much reliance upon the _external_ testimony, such as the historical evidence of Junius and the old bookbinder, the occurrence of the name of Coster in old records, old portraits, _et hoc genus omne_. All these are open to doubt, or even to denial. It is possible that the story of Junius is entirely fictitious: there is certainly no evidence to establish the identity of the Coster who figures in certain contemporary documents with Coster, the asserted inventor of movable types. In fact, the denial of Coster’s very existence may be accepted, even by his friends without any real damage to the claims of Holland, because the _internal_ evidence, as it seems to me, is unassailable. Some one printed those early specimens of the _Speculum_ and _Donatus_, and printed them with Dutch-cut letters, in the Dutch language, and with a rudeness which no one who had learnt in the far superior school of Gutenberg would have adopted. Whatever his name may have been, the relics of his workmanship remain; so, if only for the sake of precision, let us call him Coster.
One of the earliest towns in the Low Countries to receive the printing-press was Bruges; there is strong evidence that Colard Mansion was at work there so early as 1471-72, and there are so many evidences (slight in themselves, but very convincing to a practical eye) in his earlier books of customs more primitive and technical practices more rude than can be found in any of the productions of the German school of printing, that the careful observer is driven to one of two conclusions. Either the Bruges printer learnt the art in an advanced school, such as that at Cologne, and then, returning to his own town, adopted purposely primitive customs which he had never been taught, returning in after years, by slow degrees, to the advanced stage of his original tuition; or he found the art established already in his own country by the successors of Coster, just emerging from its rude infancy, and ripe for any improvements that might be suggested by the far superior productions of the German school, which by that time had become scattered throughout Europe. I need not state what must be the conclusion, and will here only describe _one_ of the internal evidences which to a practical man will amount to a demonstration that they were two distinct centres from which the art originally spread.
The flat piece of brass called by compositors a “setting-rule” appears to have been unknown to the first printers in both schools, and up to the time of its adoption the lines of type (except in the case of large letters) varied in length like the lines of MSS., because the workman was unable, without frequently breaking the line, to shift the words in order to increase or decrease the normal space between them. But when the “setting-rule” was devised, it so eased the operations of the compositor, and, by making all the lines of an even length, so improved the symmetrical appearance of the pages, that no printer after once trying it ever recurred to the old plan. In 1467 Ulric Zell, of Cologne, was unacquainted with this improvement; but as, out of the numberless works which issued from his press, it is a great rarity to find one with lines of an uneven length, we may safely conclude that he adopted it about 1468-69. Of course all who learnt the art in the Mayence school would adopt it also, as in fact we know they did by their works. But Colard Mansion at Bruges did not until 1478, ten years later; while it took nearly two years more for the improvement to cross the sea to Westminster, where our Caxton[10] adopted it in 1480.
Other peculiarities tending to the same conclusion have convinced me that the school of typography, as shown in the works issued from the Bruges and Westminster presses, was more archaic than, and entirely distinct from, the German school. Whence, then, did Mansion obtain his knowledge of the art? I know not, unless it were from the successors of Coster, who had struggled on through the intervening period, until the superior school of Germany by degrees raised them up to its own level.
Before concluding I will draw attention to a fact which I believe has hitherto received no notice. The type-moulds of Holland, Flanders, and England are alike, but very dissimilar to, and not so complicated as, the moulds used in Germany and France. Here, again, the existence of two schools is suggested to the mind. It would also be well worth noting, before they die out, the various names of tools, trade terms, and customs used by typefounders in the above countries;[11] as I have little doubt that the division into two distinct schools would here be plainly seen, even after the lapse of four centuries.
ON THE PRESENT ASPECT OF THE QUESTION, WHO WAS THE INVENTOR OF PRINTING?[12]
It has occurred to me that, as a great deal has been written since the year 1870 upon the Origin of Printing, and that as the whole subject is upon a much more definite foundation than it was twenty years ago, it would not be uninteresting to those, whose profession is to deal scientifically with volumes of all ages, to discuss the latest views as to the genesis of the printed book.
Next to religion, there is perhaps no subject that has excited more personal animosity and hatred than this--Who invented movable types? The seeds of the dispute were sown in 1499, nearly 400 years ago, when the celebrated _Cologne Chronicle_ was published, but did not spring into active life until 300 years ago, when in 1588 Junius’s _Batavia_ was issued, thirteen years after the author’s death. There a definite shape to the claims of Coster, of Haarlem, to the invention of printing was given, and from that period onward the question of Coster or Gutenberg has been fiercely debated by the rival factions among the bibliographers and literary antiquarians of Europe.
Passing over the periods of acute warfare, namely, 1740, when Europe celebrated the tercentenary of the invention; 1823, Holland’s mistaken Coster quarcentenary; 1836 and 1840, Germany’s Gutenberg celebrations; at all of which periods Europe was flooded with books and essays, we will review the state of general opinion in 1870, and then show how the fight was renewed in that year, with more fierceness than ever, upon quite new ground, giving a short notice of every work of any importance issued since then, and concluding with a summing up of the present aspect of the question. Pardon me for introducing so warlike a subject into a meeting with aims so peaceful.
The whole question, however, needs no apology for its discussion. It must always command the attention, even the deep interest, of every person who loves literature, and at the same time realises that in England, as in all civilised countries, a power has arisen mightier than Queen, Lords, and Commons, more potent than the pulpit and stronger than the bar--the fourth estate--THE PRESS.
As already noticed, the rival camps are those of Coster and Gutenberg.
In 1870 the Costerians were never stronger, nor were they at all an ignoble band. On their side were Bernard, a host in himself, Ottley, Holtrop, Campbell, Berjeau, Noel Humphreys, myself, and others. They accepted Junius’s account of the Invention of Printing as veritable tradition, even if in some parts inaccurate, and they sided with the Dutch writers Köning, De Vries, and Noordziek, to the extent of believing that Holland was the birth-place of types. Some years, however, before that period, it was known to a few that certain damaging revelations concerning the entries of Coster’s name in the Haarlem Archives were certain sooner or later to be made public: but the many were in the dark, and when, in 1870, Dr. Van der Linde, himself a native of Haarlem, published a masterly series of letters in the _Nederlandsche Spectator_, in which the documents in favour of Coster were declared to be false, and the arguments in his favour without any historical or bibliographical support, the consternation among Costerians was great; they threw down their arms, and their rout was considered complete and final. Van der Linde was master of the field; his friends exclaimed, “Exeunt Coster, Haarlem, Holland, and all their followers, never to reappear,” and enter triumphantly, with a full brass band and kettle-drum, the statue of Gutenberg, crowned by Dr. Anthon Van der Linde and surrounded by all Germany, crying “Lou is dood! Lou is dood!” (Coster is dead.)
The real good done by Van der Linde in his Haarlem Legend was to draw attention to the frauds of Köning and Dr. Abr. de Vries, who, wishing to support the story of the invention of types as narrated by Junius, quoted the Haarlem Registers in a thoroughly deceptive manner, extracting only what seemed to favour their purpose, and ignoring most important entries which would upset their theories; while, as side supports, some minor forgeries were unscrupulously perpetrated, and issued to the public in a distorted or garbled fashion as pieces of evidence. Starting with this advantage, Van der Linde brought great acuteness and clever ridicule to bear upon all other evidence in favour of Holland, and it must be confessed that for a few years the current of opinion ran all in his favour.
The real harm done by Van der Linde to history and to bibliographical research is that his unequalled powers of argument and of sarcasm have not been used wisely nor fairly. Had he been satisfied with exposing the frauds of the guilty ones, and re-stating the evidence _pro et contra_, the question might have been debated without acrimony. Instead of this, he has exhausted his vocabulary of abuse indiscriminately upon all supporters of the claims of Holland, who are, according to him, without exception, rogues and liars. He has no medium place for mistaken writers who honestly believe in their erroneous opinions. Especially is he fierce against his own countrymen: the anathemas, the torrent of abuse, and the biting sarcasm which he, a born Dutchman, although now a naturalised German, delights to throw upon them, creates a suspicion that his invectives proceed from some other motive than his love of truth; at the same time their repetition wearies and annoys the reader, who feels that the subject should be treated from a higher standpoint, and in a graver and more judicial manner.
The only rejoinder to Dr. Van der Linde’s articles in the _Nederlandsche Spectator_ worth noticing was a brochure by Dr. P. Van Meurs, who, taking his stand on the _Cologne Chronicle_ of 1499, claimed that as Holland’s all-sufficient evidence. The defence, however, though well argued and well worked out, fell flat upon the minds of people who had just been deluded by writers on their own side; and so then as now Dutch bibliographers seem afraid: they turn their backs to the smiter and open not their mouths.
Very shortly after the appearance of the articles in the _Nederlandsche Spectator_, they were reprinted, with additions, in an octavo volume, entitled _De Haarlemsche Costerlegende_, 1870, which in 1871 was translated by Mr. Hessels into English. So impressed was I with the importance of this work, that, at some expense, I printed it, so that English readers might keep abreast with the new learning. This was issued with the title, _The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of Printing critically examined_.
In 1876 Theodore de Vinne, the well-known printer of New York, published an excellent and comprehensive work, called _The Invention of Printing; a collection of facts and opinions_, etc. In this book, which has had a large circulation, he adopts all the conclusions of Van der Linde, and, of course, condemns the Costerians and all their works. American writers, however, unless they visit Europe for the purpose, are under a serious disadvantage, as they must depend upon fac-simile plates instead of a personal inspection of the originals.
About this time Mr. Madden, of Versailles, in a series of contributions to the trade organ of the Parisian printers (_La Typologie Tucker_), wrote some interesting articles on Gutenberg and his successors, which should be read in evidence, and which were reprinted in the volumes entitled _Lettres d’un Bibliophile_, 1868-1878.
In 1878 Dr. Van der Linde produced a companion volume to his Haarlem Legend. Its title is _Gutenberg; Geschichte und Erdichtung aus den Quellen nachgewiesen_. There is little that is new in this work except its increased bulk. The story of the legend is retold, and, if possible, with more bad taste than before. Great ability is shown in his treatment of the subject, and the author argues throughout like a clever barrister whose fame and future depended upon success. This book, indeed, may be described as rewarded by the German government, who, impressed with the service rendered by him to the national pride in Gutenberg, appointed Dr. Van der Linde “Oberbibliothekar” of the Royal Library, Wiesbaden. After this we know him no more as _Van_ der Linde, but as Dr. Antonius _Von_ der Linde, more German than the Germans.
We must now enter upon another and the reverse side of the subject. Mr. Hessels, also a native of Haarlem, and equally at home in the English, French, and German languages, is well-known as the author of a remarkable work upon the _Lex Salica_, for which, in combination with his work on Gutenberg, to be mentioned presently, the University of Cambridge conferred upon him the honorary degree of M.A. His long apprenticeship in palæotypography under the late Mr. Bradshaw, and his studies of the incunabula in the chief libraries of Europe, made him well acquainted with the subject of early printing, and, as already mentioned, he translated the Haarlem Legend into English. In 1879 he undertook to review critically the _Gutenberg_ of Dr. Van der Linde, which had appeared the previous year. He had not read far into the work before he found strong grounds for doubting the good faith of the author, and the result of his labours was not a mere criticism, but a re-statement of the whole Gutenberg question in a work called _Gutenberg: was he the Inventor of Printing?_ 1882. Mr. Hessels declares that Van der Linde is not at all trustworthy; but I had better quote from his preface:--“He takes all his documents at second, third, or fourth hand, rarely telling his readers upon what authority he himself prints any single document; and from not investigating a single point in the whole question, his book presents a more complete chaos on the subject than any of its predecessors” (p. 99).
Mr. Hessels took nearly three years to examine, at their sources in the various cities and towns of Germany, all the documents connected with the history of Gutenberg. It was known already that several falsifications and forgeries had been made by Schœpflin and Bodmann in the Gutenberg interest, and Mr. Hessels goes so far as to say, “In the case of Gutenberg far more forgeries have been perpetrated than in that of the Haarlem inventor.” For instance, the letter of March, 1424, is a forgery; the celebrated breach of promise case between Gutenberg and Anna zu der Iserin Thüre, about which so much romantic nonsense has been written, is a forgery; the relic of Gutenberg’s press, accepted by a good many Germans, is a palpable forgery; the Notarial Act of July, 1453, is a forgery, as is the letter of 1459; so is the MS. rubric of 1463 which mentions Gutenberg, and which Van der Linde accepted. But why go further? The scorn with which these forgeries, and they are now admitted as such by Van der Linde himself, would have been treated had they been made by a Costerian is altogether wanting in Van der Linde’s narrative; and why? because the forgers are Germans, and the forgeries made in the cause of Gutenberg.
The result of Mr. Hessels’ researches was more negative than positive. He says: “I have not found anything which enables me to answer the question, Was Gutenberg the Inventor of Printing? with either a Yes or a No. Of the three principal documents, one is lost entirely, and the other two only preserved in transcripts. In ordinary cases transcripts may be safely relied on, but, considering the extraordinary forgeries and frauds perpetrated on this subject, caution is more than ever necessary. But even if we accept these transcripts, and base ourselves on what we have, I can only see that these documents point to Gutenberg as a printer, but not as the inventor of printing, and that is the main question. The Incunabula, which are usually ascribed to Gutenberg, tell us nothing about him; and what is still more remarkable, they may, with the utmost facility, be ascribed to other printers, and have actually been so ascribed.”
Following the list of books chronologically, it is quite a relief to take up Mr. Conway’s book _The Wood-cutters of the Netherlands_, issued in 1884. This book has a direct bearing on the early history of printing, not in any way on account of the author’s opinions, for he advances none, but because of the numerous personal observations and facts about the block-books and the earliest typographical wood-cuts, all taken from actual inspection. The work is a storehouse of useful information arranged on a scientific basis for the use of students.
Again we must devote some space to Dr. Van der Linde, who, the German government having consented to bear the cost, issued last year (1886) an enormous work entitled _Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst_. It is in three large volumes, and is a notable piece of book-making, sheet after sheet being occupied with mere padding. There is nothing except luxurious printing and a lot of unimportant plates to distinguish it from his former work _Gutenberg_. We need, therefore, notice it no further than to express a strong opinion that the only person in connection with this work to receive praise should be the printer. One of the author’s outcries against Costerians was, that they issued “works of luxury, the mere appearance of which imposed upon the unlearned.” This puts one in mind of the old proverb “Curses often come home to roost.” These “Livres de luxe” of Van der Linde had not been out long before Mr. Hessels began in the _Academy_ a series of letters on the Invention of Printing, with especial reference to the position held by the “Costeriana.” They were continued through the months of April, May, and June of the present year, and deal severely and efficiently with the blunders and erroneous readings of Van der Linde, who, professing to have studied the originals, did no such thing, but depended upon other writers for his quotations. Mr. Hessels enters minutely into the early manufacture of MSS., block-books, and type-books, showing how certain signs prove an earlier or later date. The early works ascribed to Gutenberg are then examined, and most of them attributed to Pfister. He disproves the dates 1471-74 as the period when the “Costeriana” were printed, and shows how very out of place, typographically speaking, these “Costeriana” would be at so late a period, and urging with a great show of likelihood that 1446-74 would be a period much more in consonance with their typographical aspect. Several reasons are adduced for attributing to Haarlem the earliest attempts at types.[13]
Turning now from the heated controversy of opposing authors, let us honestly and seriously consider the facts, so far as we can get at them, which are adduced by each side, and weigh their evidence.
Omitting all reference to documents connected with Gutenberg which bear only upon his personal history, and have nothing to do with typography, the first we find is a lawsuit, in 1439, between Geo. Dritzehen and Gutenberg. The authenticity of this document is doubtful. Schœpflin, who forged two or three other documents, was the first to publish this, and it was partly seen by De Laborde. Dr. Dibdin, who, about 1820, saw one of the three volumes which contained them, doubted their genuineness, and all chance of verifying them is now gone, for in the siege of Strasbourg two of the volumes were burnt, one having been already destroyed in 1793 during the French Revolution. The suit was to define the rights of partnership in a certain business: polished stones are mentioned; secret arts known to Gutenberg; implements; four pieces laying down in a press; while one witness speaks of work connected with “printing,” and another of polishing mirrors. This seems to point to trials at some kind of printing, though the evidence of a witness that the partnership had been profitable points strongly the other way. Printing from blocks was, of course, known before 1443; but our question is as to printing with movable types, about which the document says nothing. Again, in 1455, we find Fust, who had lent money to Gutenberg, bringing an action to recover wages, rent, vellum, paper, and ink. He gained the action, and Gutenberg had to yield up all his material. There is little doubt that this is genuine, and that the work in hand was type printing. These two seem the only documents that can be produced as to Gutenberg’s connection with the new Art.
The general consent of all nations in ascribing the honour of the invention of printing to Gutenberg seems at first sight a very strong argument in his favour; but if Gutenberg were not the first to invent and use movable types, but the clever man who brought to perfection what already existed in a crude state, we can quite imagine his fame to have spread everywhere as the real inventor. As a master in the art of printing, Gutenberg’s name was known in Paris so early as 1472. This interesting fact will be found in the admirable work of M. Jules Philippe on the Origin of Printing in Paris, published in 1886. Examining carefully all the known copies of _Gasparini Pergamensis Orthographia_, printed at Paris about 1472, M. Philippe tells us that, in the copy preserved in the Heylin Collection at Basle, there is a unique Prologue by Guil. Fichet, printed with the same Sorbonne types that were used for the rest of the volume. This was originally discovered by Dr. Sieber of Basle. The portion which interests us reads thus: “I imagine that the friends of literature will receive great benefit from the Art invented by the new sort of Printers, who in these our days have (like the warriors from the Trojan Horse) issued from the womb of Germany and scattered themselves abroad. In this country (France) the story is, that a certain John Gutenberg, not far from Mayence, was the first inventor of the Printing Art, by means of which books are made, not with a reed as of old, nor with a pen as in our days, but with metal letters, and that rapidly, evenly, and elegantly.” This is a plain testimony, but proves nothing more than we knew before, viz., that Gutenberg invented a more perfect method of printing than he had found to his hand in Holland. Fichet, indeed, distinctly mentions Gutenberg as celebrated for inventing “a new kind of printing.” This Association will remember an interesting Paper read on this subject by Mr. Pullen, Keeper of the Printed Books at the British Museum, at our Dublin meeting. Numerous other writers and chroniclers bear the same witness, just as in all our biographical dictionaries Watt is spoken of as the inventor of the steam engine, which we know he only greatly improved.
Still another and very important witness is the writer of the _Cologne Chronicle_, who in 1499, while praising Gutenberg and attributing the discovery to him, adds, “Although the art was discovered at Mentz in the manner as it is now generally used, yet the first idea (vurbyldung = voorbeelding) was found in Holland in the Donatuses, which were printed there before that time. And from these Donatuses the beginning of the said art (as used by Gutenberg) was taken. And it was invented in a manner much more masterly and subtle than this, and became more and more ingenious.”
This evidence, which it should be remembered was taken direct from the mouth of Ulric Zell, the first printer at Cologne and disciple of Gutenberg, is very strongly in favour of Holland, and can hardly be explained away by saying that the writer meant the Netherlands or Flanders, or meant by “Donatuses” engraved blocks of wood, as maintained by Van der Linde and his followers. A reference to block-books would be contrary to the whole tenor of the remarks. The writer is speaking of movable types as used by Gutenberg, and states, if words mean anything, that the very badly type-printed Donatuses of Holland excited in him the desire to print in the same way, only more masterly: this he certainly did.
But then comes the natural question, Are there such Donatuses known? I need only refer you to the list in your hands of the Costeriana, as catalogued by Mr. Hessels. While Donatuses printed in Holland in a rude manner were almost unnoticed by bibliographers, there were some grounds for throwing doubt on the meaning of Zell. Now that at least twenty editions of early Dutch-printed Donatuses, as well as many similar works, are known, the reference of the Cologne Chronicler has much greater weight.
We must note, too, that Gutenberg’s name does not appear on a single production of his press, nor does any one of his associates or patrons, not even the Archbishop or his money-lender, Doctor Homeyr, connect him with the original invention.
To what then does the evidence so far point? This--that Gutenberg was a famous printer, who was the first to bring his art to that perfection which we trace in the Mazarin Bible and in the beautiful Mayence Psalter printed by his associates and successors, Fust and Schœffer.
Turn we now to the Costerian view of the subject; and here, to start with, we must rid our minds of the cobwebs and falsifications imported into the question by partisan writers.
There is no need to tear one’s hair, as Dr. V. der Linde does, over the misdeeds of the Haarlem archivists and antiquarians: he is silent enough over the German falsifications. Let us take the Dutch evidence as we know it now, since the investigations of Holtrop, Campbell, Hessels, and others.
Junius was a learned man of high character, and respected throughout all Europe. As his account is very distasteful to Dr. Van der Linde, a foolish attempt is made to discredit both the good name and talents of Junius. In 1588 he gave an account in his _Batavia_ of the Invention of Printing at Haarlem by Coster. This account, which must have been written about 1568, he had heard as a tradition handed down to his time, and it is corroborated in part by documents, the existence of which was unknown to him. He gives the name of the inventor as Laur. Janszoon Coster, and Coster’s name is found just at the right date in the Haarlem Registers. He mentions an old man--Cornelis, and sure enough modern writers have turned up the name as a bookbinder in the town archives. We certainly are not bound to take the whole of the narrative as true,--Junius gives it as a tradition,--but wherever unexpected confirmation turns up it gives a stronger support to the whole. Mr. Hessels, indeed, believes that the Coster mentioned in the archives as living in Haarlem, 1436-83, was the inventor of types, and that, taken as a whole, the story as told by Junius is substantially correct. Personally I should like to wait for more evidence.
There is no doubt that the back-bone of the Dutch claim lies in the pieces and fragments of old books discovered for the most part in the last few decades, and which give support to, at the same time that they receive support from, the Cologne Chronicler. As you will see by your list, these now amount to forty-seven different works. Their number is being added to continually now that the attention of librarians has been strongly called to the importance of noting and preserving them. They have been catalogued with profound insight by Mr. Hessels, and for the first time classified by internal evidence into their various types and classes. But, it may well be asked, what evidence is there that all these books were not printed long after Gutenberg’s press was at work? The first printed date which appears in any German document is on an indulgence dated 1454, and if the opinion of Dr. Van der Linde is right, all these “Costeriana” rank naturally at least twenty years later. The earliest book of Dutch printing bears date 1473, and not a single edition out of all the so-called Costeriana has any printer’s name or place or date. To this the reply is, that these small pieces were school-books or absies and such-like works, in the production of which there was nothing to boast of, as there would be in a Bible. Such things were at all times “sine ullâ notâ,” and certain to be destroyed when done with, so that the wonder would be to find them so dated, and the very fact of their bearing a date would go far to prove them not genuine. These fragments have been nearly all discovered in 15th-century books, printed mostly in various towns of Holland. One indeed--a Donatus--was extracted from the binding of an account book of 1474, belonging to the Cathedral of Haarlem, an entry in which shows that the book was bound by Cornelis, the very man mentioned by Junius as having been the servant of Coster. Another was found in an account book of 1476, belonging to the same Cathedral, and bound also by Cornelis. Several other fragments of these Costerian Donatuses have been used by this same Cornelis in strengthening his bindings for the Cathedral. All these are now duly preserved at Haarlem. This points at any rate to Costeriana “waste” being in Haarlem when the books were bound.
Mr. Hessels quotes forty-seven different books as “Costeriana,” which include four editions of the _Speculum_, nineteen of _Donatus_, and seven of _Doctrinale_. The Donatuses are in five different types, probably from five different Dutch presses. Compared with the earliest dated books of 1473 onwards, printed in Holland, they have nothing in common, while their brotherhood to the Dutch MSS. and block-books of about thirty years earlier is apparent.
Just as astronomers have been unable to explain certain aberrations of the planets without surmising a missing link in the chain of their knowledge, so is it with early typography. That such finished works as the first editions of the Bible and Psalter _could be_ the legitimate predecessors of the Costeriana, the Bruges, the Westminster press, and others, I cannot reconcile with the internal evidence of their workmanship. But admit the existence of an earlier and much ruder school of typography, and all is plain and harmonious. Side by side, the weakest gave place and the fittest survived, and soon, as in all survivals, the existence of the former became traditionary.
It is impossible in the short space of a lecture to adduce more than a portion of the evidence which could be brought forward--evidence which each year grows more and more strong. The onus of further research lies with the Germans. They have done very little as yet in this field, although they have many old libraries, the contents of which have never been examined with an eye to the ancient bindings where the evidence for or against is most likely to turn up. Other countries also have treasure-houses of old 15th-century books. To mention one only, Sweden: who has thoroughly examined the numerous incunabula in the great libraries at Lund, Upsala, and Stockholm? The more these are examined the longer will be the list of “Costeriana,” and it is quite probable that somewhere will be discovered a date or a fact which will turn the probability, that Holland was the birth-place of printing, into an acknowledged historical fact.
In conclusion, we must admit that, however strong the circumstantial evidence in favour of Holland may be, the verdict cannot be given positively to either party, although I have little doubt as to which side all future evidence will tend.
A LIST OF BOOKS PUBLISHED UPON THE SUBJECT SINCE 1868.
HOLTROP, J. W. Monuments Typographiques des Pays-Bas au quinzième Siècle. Collection de Fac-simile d’après les originaux conservés à la Bibliothèque Royale de la Haye et ailleurs. xiii pp. + 126 pp. + 12 pp. of Table + 180 fac. Plates + 1 Map. Folio. La Haye, 1868.
This is the most important book ever published for the study of Dutch incunabula, as the fac-similes are most excellent and represent many of the very books and fragments of books upon which Costerians rely.
LINDE, DR. A. VAN DER. De Haarlemsche Costerlegende wetenschappelijk onderzocht. Tweede, omgewerkte Uitgaaf. 8 + 352 pp. and 1 plate. 8vo. ’sGravenhage, 1870.
The first edition appeared in the _Nederlandschen Spectator_, Dec., 1869, to May, 1870.
MEURS, DR. P. VAN. De Keulsche Kroniek en de Costerlegende van Dr. Van der Linde. 8 + 65 pp. 8vo. Haarlem, 1870.
A criticism upon Van der Linde’s treatment of the _Cologne Chronicle_.
LINDE, DR. A. VAN DER. The Haarlem Legend of the Invention of Printing, by Lourens Janszoon Coster, critically examined. From the Dutch, by J. H. Hessels, with an introduction and a classified list of the Costerian Incunabula. xxvi + 170 pp. 8vo. London, 1871.
VINNE, THEO. L., DE. The Invention of Printing. A collection of facts and opinions descriptive of early Prints and Playing Cards, the Block-books of the Fifteenth Century, the Legend of Laurens Janszoon Coster of Haarlem, and the work of John Gutenberg and his associates. Illustrated with fac-similes of early types and wood-cuts. Frontispiece and 556 pp. 8vo. New York, 1876.
MADDEN, J. P. A. Lettres d’un Bibliographe. 6th series. 8vo. Paris, 1868-78. Atlas separate.
Contains many interesting articles on Gutenberg and his school, and adopts entirely the conclusions of Van der Linde.
LINDE, DR. A. V. D. Gutenberg. Geschichte und Erdichtung aus den Quellen nachgewiesen. x + 583 + xcviii pp. 8vo. Stuttgart, 1878.
HESSELS, J. H. Gutenberg: Was he the Inventor of Printing? An historical investigation. xxviii + 201 pp. 8vo. London, 1882.
CONWAY, WILLIAM MARTIN. The Wood-cutters of the Netherlands in the Fifteenth Century. In three parts:--I. History of the Wood-cutters. II. Catalogue of the Woodcuts. III. List of the Books containing Woodcuts. xx + 359 pp. 8vo. Cambridge, 1884.
PHILIPPE, JULES. Origine de l’Imprimerie à Paris, d’après des documents inédits. viii + 256 pp. + 19 facs. 8vo. Paris, 1885.
Contains the earliest known notice of Gutenberg as a Printer.
LINDE, A. VON DER. Geschichte der Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst. 3 Vols. 1020 pp. Large 4to. Berlin, 1886.
REED, TALBOT BAINES. A History of the Old English Letter Foundries, with Notes, historical and bibliographical, on the rise and progress of English Typography, xiv + 379 pp., and 17 plates. 4to. London, 1887.
Has an introductory chapter on “The Types and Type-founding of the First Printers.”
HESSELS, J. H. The History of the Invention of Printing. A series of articles in _The Academy_, April to June, 1887.
HESSELS, J. H. Haarlem the Birth-place of Printing, not Mentz. Title + 78 pp. 8vo. London, 1887. (Elliot Stock.)
DE ORTU TYPOGRAPHIÆ.